Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

I'm not buying the racial component as the root of the jazz vs. smooth jazz debate.

Black/White race relations infuses virtually every aspect of American history and the evolution of jazz is a prime example. Jazz is not the only area where the general public has marveled that a white performer can competently do what any number of black performers excel at. And it's a fact that the level of difficulty and artistry involved in creating jazz is not fully appreciated. Witness that Wynton Marsalis has dedicated his professional life to trying to get that respect.

With all that as backdrop at some point jazz evolved and became a non-exclusively black music style. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point in the last generation or so it became a toss up whether a really good and inventive jazz musician was black or white. To take the point even further, that musician may not even be American. Traditional jazz will always be a form of black music no matter what the race of the musicians, but some parts of jazz have moved beyond that border. And it's not as if the border is clearly demarcated. (It's easier for me to see it in rock music since rock is a simple music form. The Beatles playing "Long Tall Sally" are white musicians playing rock which is a black music form. The Beatles playing "A Day In the Life" are still playing rock, but it's not derived from black music, which is not to say it is completely divorced from.) At some point the concept of jazz became an international music form that while based in black music is not entirely anchored to it. People observed this as far back as the Miles Davis/Gil Evans collaborations.

In many ways smooth jazz is to jazz what early rock was to R&B. Just compare Chuck Berry's guitar work to T-Bone Walker's. In the end it's not so much about the ethnicity of the musicians as it is about the that of the audience they are appealing to, which in turn is about the color of money.

MrMitch, it's a given that white record exec's have always called the shots concerning talent, promotion, production. I eluded to that in earlier comments regarding 'packaged goods' being bought and sold in the dumming down of a society. Profit trumps art, but generally only always. This is America after all.

I've addressed very specific and detailed reasons why 'smooth' does not gain the respect of an educated classic jazz listener. I've offered cultural, social, and political components that I feel all contribute to why smooth has not nor will it ever reach the level of an art form. It's canned "jazz" targeted for the masses. Exec's do the same thing with pop.

I agree to disagree with you regarding education and listening. There's nothing "elitist" about it. Either one has some idea of what they've just heard or they're clueless. I don't see how suggesting educating oneself about rudimentary elements of music makes one an elitist.

For example, let's examine your acknowledged specialty, classical music.

One is better equipped to appreciate a Bach or Beethoven fugue if they've some idea what a fugue is. That's all I'm suggesting. Rudimentary education of musical elements better equips the listener of processing and understanding the classical music they're listening to. Without it, it's blind listening. Of course one could really go all out and take a classical music appreciation course at most community colleges and learn a lot about classical music they're not going to discover on their own by flipping 33's.

I'm not suggesting one has to have a degree in jazz theory to understand jazz. But a basic education of musical elements empowers the listener with a greater insight into what they're hearing.

I'm saying the less knowledgeable can choose to remain less knowledgeable, or not. Education is always an invitation. Either one has the calling or not.

Only a fool would suggest what someone "should" or "should not" be listening to. People listen to what they enjoy. But until one makes the choice to understand that a diminished 5th is simply an enharmonic spelling of an augmented 4th, which is the same as a tritone, then they're clueless when a jazz artist is talking about tritone substitutions. This is about as basic a jazz terminology as jazz gets, and it's commonplace knowledge among listeners who've not studied music to any great degree.

Mrmitch, I've a question you're perfectly qualified to answer.

You're a classically trained musician whose dedicated years to the study of classical music. So if a listener believes all classical music sounds alike how would you go about educating them that no, all classical music is not alike? Of course you'd assuredly point out the many different periods of classical that are distinctly different from one another throughout time, i.e., baroque, classical, romantic, eras etc. Perhaps you'd be offended if someone equated a commonplace easy listening elevator music to a Brahms concerto. But what's the difference, all I hear are violins in both pieces? The point is, the better equipped one is to define what they're hearing, the better equipped are they to determine what their true preference is. As I mentioned before, I've nothing against smooth for it's responsible for attracting a certain percentage of the more curious to classical jazz. But to equate smooth with classic jazz sounds foolish for it's not on the same level harmonically or technically. Anyone suggesting smooth and classical jazz differences aren't worthy of distinction does not understand jazz or music.

But I've an open mind and welcome hearing why I'm completely wrong.

Onhwy61, as a contributor to the original thread 8 years ago, welcome back!

You don't see the connection, fair enough.

Contrary to what you wrote 8 years ago many believe jazz evolved because of Bebop, not in spite of it.

As an example I offer a common question that's asked:

"When did Jazz musicians start to take themselves seriously as artists?"

A typical response to that is it may have begun when folks began noticing members of the Basie or Ellington bands were playing really well and they stopped dancing and started listening.

Hmmm, that's about as plausible an explanation as I've heard.

No doubt, jazz at one point was the pop "dance" music of the day.

Contrary to your suggestion years ago I offer that Bebop is as responsible for elevating jazz to an art form as any other musical aspect of the historical jazz pot. This is creole music. Literally. It's like a gumbo, with a lil' of this and a bit of that. You can't have jazz without the blues, and you can't have the harmonic and rhythmic complexities of jazz without the subtleties of Bebop.

Furthermore, remove Dizzy Gillespie, a serious Bebop player. and a foremost ambassador and educator of jazz responsible for taking the music to all corners of the globe and what do you have? One couldn't imagine removing Stan Getz and the Brazilian influence that impacted jazz during the very early 60's. Bebop's had an even greater influence upon jazz. I couldn't imagine jazz without Dexter Gordon. Dext' never stopped being a 'bop player, nor did countless others throughout the course of their careers.

Coltrane, you missed the point entirely. No one equated classical jazz with smooth jazz, the point made was both have their place and each deserves trheir own respect for what they are. And you seem to have answered your own r hetorical question-peace out.

I agree that the race component is, if not entirely, mostly irrelevant to the debate about "contemporary" jazz. I say "mostly" irrelevant, because race has been a formidable force in the history of jazz; obviously. It is extremely difficult to discuss the subject in our politically-correct society.

Coltrane 1, I agree with much of what you say, but not all; and certainly not as concerns the relevance of race issues in the current music/jazz environment. I will try to express some thoughts/feelings in a way that, if they are to have any real significance at all, will surely rub some the wrong way. For my inability to express those thoughts in a way that is totally inoffensive to all, I apologize. But, I know where my heart lies. So, my apology only goes so far. Anyway, here goes:

The dirty little secret, and one that we white guys are too often unwilling to truly embrace, is that the greatest jazz artists have been black; end of story. There have been a few notable exceptions, but there is no question in my mind that the true innovators in jazz, and those that did the best job of expressing, through their music, the deepest depths of the human condition, were black artists. Not because blacks, as a group, have superior expressiveness ability, but because of the other part of the dirty little secret: the depth of the pain that blacks were submitted to by a predominantly white culture. Good art is always a reflection/expression of what is happening in a society, and we all know that there were some pretty terrible things going on in our society, leading up to the birth of jazz. But, and this is a big "but", that was then, and this is now.

Society evolves, race issues have evolved, and jazz has evolved. Contemporary (current) jazz, some of it clearly valid, simply doesn't have the relevance that music that expressed the social/racial turmoil at the turn of the 20th century, through the era of the civil-rights movement did. How could it? When we now live in a society which, in spite of all the cries of doom and gloom, is still one in which there is a tremendous amount of wealth, and the members in it's lowest economic strata are still able to have a lifestyle that is the envy of the vast majority of the rest of the world. We tend to lose perspective. Is it any wonder that much of the art expresses a kind of vapidness, and lack of true emotional complexity?

I don't buy that racism plays an adverse role in the success of black contemporary jazz artists. In fact, the opposite is sometimes true. I know several young white artists trying to establish themselves in the NYC jazz scene, who feel that black players get preferential treatment from producers/promoters. It wasn't long ago that Wynton Marsalis got some legal heat for trying to replace the white members of his band. Is racism dead? Of course not; probably never will be.

We are all racist. It is programmed into our genes. It is what we as individuals do with that fact that makes the difference. We strive to be more enlightened individuals by recognizing our flaws. But, losing perspective, and using race as justification for lack of self-reliance is as bad as active racism itself. We have a black president, and every ethnic color is well represented in every position of power in our society. I would prefer to celebrate that new reality, than keep looking back. And maybe then we can get to the point that we can freely state that we don't like a particular Obama policy, without fear of being called racist. Or that I prefer Tom Harrell's playing to Terrence Blanchard's without fear of the same.

Re the success of the likes of Kenny G, Chris Botti, etc. In the scheme of things, does it really matter?